Anonymous v Roche: alleged £100k payments to induce Xenical prescribing via PGDs (AUTH/2276/11/09)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/2276/11/09
Parties	Anonymous complainant v Roche Products Limited
Medicine	Xenical (orlistat)
Main allegation	Payments used to induce prescribing; alleged £100,000 per year to a chemist chain to ensure Xenical prescribed via PGDs
Key payment discussed	£100,000 paid in 2007 as a one-off contribution to update weight-loss programme materials after Roche changed patient support service (MAP to EMAP)
PGD context	Private PGD used in a chemist chain weight-loss programme; patients paid privately (not NHS prescription)
Applicable Code year	2006
Clauses cited	Clause 2; Clause 9.1; Clause 18.1
Panel decision	No breach of the Code (no breach of Clause 18.1 ruled)
Complaint received	19 November 2009
Case completed	10 February 2010
Appeal	No appeal
Notable Panel comment	Roche’s failure to disclose the one-off £100,000 payment in its initial response was described as “poor practice”; full and frank disclosure is important for self-regulation

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

An anonymous, non-contactable complainant alleged Roche used payments to induce prescribing of Xenical (orlistat).
The allegation: a named chemist chain was paid £100,000 per year to ensure Xenical was prescribed directly to patients via patient group directions (PGDs).
The complainant provided a copy of a November 2008 email referring to an email chain and a Xenical sales agreement highlighting a cumulative shortfall in payment for an identified sum.
Roche denied paying £100,000 per year, but stated it paid £100,000 in 2007 as a one-off contribution towards costs of updating weight-loss programme materials following Roche’s change from MAP (postal support) to EMAP (web-based support).
Roche argued the arrangement was outside the Code under the Clause 1.2 exemption for certain historic trade practices relating to prices/margins/discounts.
The Panel disagreed that the payment fell outside the Code, but found no evidence it was used to secure prescribing via PGDs.

⚖️

⌄

No breach of the Code was ruled.
The Panel stated it was “extremely disappointing” that Roche did not disclose the one-off £100,000 payment in its initial response and only did so after being asked for further information; the Panel described this as poor practice in the context of self-regulation and full and frank disclosure.
The Panel concluded the £100,000 payment was within the scope of the Code (not exempt as a trade practice), but there was insufficient evidence to show it was an inducement to prescribe.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access